I would agree with you that frequent errata can be good for MMO or MOBA games but I still disagree that that implies Alteil would benefit from common errata given how they tried it before and it tanked sales.

Cultural differences and bad execution in general from JP? As long as we don't do that we may be fine.

IMO, it's kinda like this: if you don't even try, you can not succeed. Alteil now can go either the way of the leaky bathtub, or actually forge a stable communnity. You can not do the latter without more frequent erratas, because the meta will stagnate between releases and the older cards will grow obsolete over time. Not to mention it encourages erring on the side of caution for new releases cause we can buff them later, whereas releasing an OPOP card and then nerfing it after it stomped around in folrart for a week leaves a bad taste in both those who got stomped and those who spent their cash to stomp.

Of course, the game first needs way more players and a stable tournament scene for more accurate data for frequent errata to really work. Laying the groundwork doesn't hurt though.

Last edited by LoneKnight on Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:15 pm, edited 4 times in total.

LoneKnight wrote:Cultural differences and bad execution in general from JP? Didn't they lose half their playerbase after a bad errata decision? That decision being "nerf older OP cards then release new ones and continue the cycle"? As long as we don't do that we may be fine.

You may want to revalidate the legitimacy of those statements, as nothing of the sort ever happened.

I agree that there are many old cards that really require a buff.BUTThere are also many cards that do not require a buff but a support in form of new cards, new souls buffers for the tribe etc. Therefore I am not actually sure if this is a good idea. (see also my endless comments about balance not happening on single card level..)

Further more the time pressure such an errata of the week would create is enormous, which would bring the danger with itself that the team does errata for the sake of errata and not for the sake of balance/variety in folrart. And this could lead to hasty not overthought buffs which could create enormous issues later when new cards are released.

No this is too much risk, I am clearly against that.

Instead of this how about making a list of outdated/old fashioned cards that require a buff/or a support and putting pressure on the balance team that they consider these cards in future errata.

I actually think doing an errata on one card a week might actually be better then, say, doing an errata on 30 cards every two months. I think it would be better to do consistent, small erratas and see how that affects the meta (ie doing things little by little). Plus, one card a week isn't too daunting of a task compared to a large quantity of cards having to be done all at once. I feel the latter would lead to more mistakes actually. Not to mention that changing a lot of things at once is much more likely to be a volatile and unpopular change.

So yea, I think this is actually a good idea. It might be a better way of operating tbh.

Also, I'd like to see more changes concerning SS. There are huge power differences concerning the many different SS out there. A lot of them are simply underpowered and just not as good as certain higher tier ones.